Felon voting advocates argue new election law has no impact on federal case | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the Carolina Journal. The author of this post is CJ Staff.

    Critics of North Carolina's felon voting restrictions believe the state's newest election law has no impact on their federal lawsuit. They argued in a court filing Friday that a federal judge should grant their request to strike down the 50-year-old felon re-enfranchisement law.

    A hearing in the case is scheduled Nov. 14 in Durham.

    Senate Bill 747, enacted into law on Oct. 10 over Gov. Roy Cooper's veto, could affect the case's outcome.

    One paragraph in the 43-page law changes the language of NC Gen. Stat. 163-275(5). That statute created a Class I felony "For any person convicted of a crime which excludes the person from the right of suffrage, to vote at any primary or election without having been restored to the right of citizenship in due course and by the method provided by law."

    Under provisions of the new law, it's a crime "For any person convicted of a crime which excludes the person from the right of suffrage, to vote in any primary or election knowing the right of citizenship has not been restored in due course and by the method provided by law."

    The major change is that the voting felon would have to know that his voting rights had not been restored to be charged with a crime.

    "The Court should grant summary judgment that N.C.G.S. 163-275(5) (the 'Law') violates the Fourteenth Amendment," wrote attorneys representing the plaintiffs. "Defendants have conceded that they 'do not possess any evidence to dispute' that the Law was enacted with discriminatory intent in 1877, the Law was reenacted with discriminatory intent in 1899, and the Law continues to have a disproportionate effect on Black voters through today."

HbAD0

    "Nothing in Senate Bill 747 ('SB 747') changes those undisputed facts," felon voting advocates argued. "The Law is therefore unconstitutional and cannot be saved by SB 747. In addition, because SB 747 has not gone into effect and is not retroactive, the existing Law will continue to impede Plaintiffs' voter organization efforts. The case will not become moot."

    The brief noted that the change in state law linked to SB 747 takes effect Jan. 1. "The prospective future change in the Law does not cure the existing constitutional violations or provide Defendants with an escape hatch to avoid summary judgment," felon voting advocates argued. "There are still no genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding the discriminatory intent and impact of the Law."

    "As long as the risk of prosecution under the existing Law remains, Plaintiffs' voter organization efforts will be impeded," the brief explained. "Indeed, continued prosecutions under the existing Law would cause great voter confusion as to the state of the Law post-January 1, 2024."

    Felon voting advocates point to evidence of "more than 200 cases currently subject to DA review for potential prosecution." The State Board of Elections' general counsel has testified that the board would refer all potential violations of the law to prosecutors, according to the court filing.

    "Public prosecutions under the existing, historic Law in the lead up to the 2024 election cycle would cause voter confusion and impede Plaintiffs' efforts," felon voting advocates argued..

    Friday's brief responded to a court order calling for both sides in the felon voting suit to respond to SB 747. Defenders of current state felon voting restrictions face a Wednesday deadline to file their own brief.

    The Nov. 14 hearing is scheduled to address the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

    Felon voting advocates filed the motion in June. They want the federal courts to strike down a state law that allows felons to regain voting rights only after they complete their full sentences.

HbAD1

    Advocates want felons to be able to register and vote once they have completed active prison sentences. Their suit would affect felons on parole, probation, or post-release supervision.

    US District Judge Loretta Biggs decided on Sept. 25 not to speed up the case's timeline. Biggs rejected a proposal that could have affected rules for this year's municipal elections.

    Instead the hearing will take place one week after Election Day. A trial in the case is scheduled for April.

    The NC State Board of Elections and local district attorneys urged Biggs this summer to reject the lawsuit filed by the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC. The plaintiffs are working with lawyers from the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

    Action in the federal case resumed after the NC Supreme Court upheld state felon voting rules in April.

    "The North Carolina Constitution forbids a person convicted of a felony from voting 'unless that person shall be first restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law,'" wrote lawyers from the NC Department of Justice on July 31. They represent the state elections board and the DA defendants.

    The court filing referenced Article VI, Section 2(3) of the state constitution.

    "To give effect to and enforce this constitutional provision, N.C.G.S. 163-275(5) makes it a felony '[f]or any person convicted of a crime which excludes the person from the right of suffrage, to vote at any primary or election without having been restored to the right of citizenship in due course and by the method provided by law,'" state lawyers explained.

    "Plaintiffs assert a facial challenge to the constitutionality of subsection 163-275(5), contending that it is void for vagueness in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was enacted in 1877, and reenacted in 1899, with racially discriminatory intent in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both counts fail," state Justice Department lawyers argued.

    Defendants in the case already have signaled that they believe SB 747 will affect the case's outcome.

    "[T]he enactment of SB747 will fundamentally alter the course of this case," according to lawyers representing the State Board of Elections and local district attorneys. "At maximum, it could moot the case entirely, and at minimum, it would fundamentally change the analysis and arguments for each claim."

    Critics of North Carolina's felon voting restrictions turned their attention back to federal court, less than two months after the NC Supreme Court rejected a challenge of the state's felon voting law in April.

HbAD2

    The Southern Coalition for Social Justice filed a motion for summary judgment on June 15 in US District Court. The group represents plaintiffs who started a legal challenge in September 2020. The lawsuit asks a federal judge to "invalidate" the felon re-enfranchisement law.

    "The Court should invalidate North Carolina General Statute 163-275(5) because it violates both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment," according to the motion.

    Opponents label the felon voting restriction the "Strict Liability Voting Law." It "imposes strict-liability, felony-level criminal penalties on citizens who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision for a felony conviction - even if they mistakenly believe they are eligible to vote. The Law cannot withstand Fourteenth Amendment scrutiny," the brief added.

    The motion for summary judgment focuses on an 1877 version of the felon voting law. It offers a passing reference to amendments as recently as 1973 that have made it easier for felons to regain voting rights after completing their sentences. The document references a state constitutional provision related to felon voting restrictions. Yet the suit does not target the state constitution.

    Federal court action follows felon voting advocates' April 28 setback in North Carolina's highest court.

    Plaintiffs in a separate case called Community Success Initiative v. Moore had challenged felon voting restrictions through the state court system. Activists hoped to open the door to voting for as many as 56,000 felons who had completed active prison time but had not completed their full sentences.

    A split 2-1 trial court ruling, upheld by a split 2-1 state Appeals Court decision, allowed felons to register and vote in last November's election.

    The state's highest court overruled those lower courts.

    "Our state constitution ties voting rights to the obligation that all citizens have to refrain from criminal misconduct," wrote Justice Trey Allen for the 5-2 majority. "Specifically, it denies individuals with felony convictions the right to vote unless their citizenship rights are restored 'in the manner prescribed by law.' No party to this litigation disputes the validity of Article VI, Section 2(3) of the North Carolina Constitution."

    "This case is therefore not about whether disenfranchisement should be a consequence of a felony conviction," Allen added. "The state constitution says that it must be, and we are bound by that mandate."

    Plaintiffs instead challenged laws approved in the 1970s to set the rules for felons to regain voting rights. "The evidence does not prove that legislators intended their reforms ... in the early 1970s to disadvantage African Americans, nor does it substantiate plaintiffs' other constitutional claims," Allen wrote. "It is not unconstitutional to insist that felons pay their debt to society as a condition of participating in the electoral process. We therefore reverse the trial court's final order and judgment."

    "The General Assembly did not engage in racial discrimination or otherwise violate the North Carolina Constitution by requiring individuals with felony convictions to complete their sentences - including probation, parole, or post-release supervision - before they regain the right to vote," Allen added.

HbAD3

    Justice Anita Earls wrote for the dissenting Democratic justices. "The majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds," she wrote. "First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own."

poll#147
Do you consider Election Integrity an issue of some real importance, or just another conspiracy theory interfering with Democratic Socialist political hegemony?
  No, complete access to everyone voting, even in a willy nilly manner, is more important than getting it right by limiting access to those that would commit Voter Fraud.
  Yes, the most inalienable right of real citizens of this Democratic Republic is the Right to Vote, and that right shall remain sacrosanct for perpetuity.
  Again, I don't vote and I don't care.
730 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?


poll#214
Understanding that there are two firm positions concerning the Open Border Crises, but many realties regarding its current, and, or projected real impacts to the functioning, sustainability of this Constitutional Republic: What position below best represents what you know to be true regarding this impactful policy?
  The United States' must continue the Executive initiative of Open Borders until a Democratic Congress can codify full Demographic Inclusion by keeping the Biden /Harris Open Borders policy in place.
  Our United States' borders are sovereign just as are our self-governed citizens, where borders must be maintained, monitored and defended, which is the position of core Republicans.
  I am in favor of Open Borders to make my America more of a global community; however, the federal government must now fix problems that "Red State" governors have caused in our cities.
  I do NOT favor the Democratic Socialists' disruption of the cultural fabric of my Representative Republic, and there will be Treasonous Hell to Pay when the certain calamity begins in earnest.
185 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

Go Back
HbAD4

 
Back to Top